Last Updated on July 7, 2019 by LawEuro
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 219
June 2018
Alpeyeva and Dzhalagoniya v. Russia – 7549/09 and 33330/11
Judgment 12.6.2018 [Section III]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Arbitrary invalidation of Russian passports issued to former Soviet nationals: violation
Facts – The first applicant moved to Russia in 1994 after the Russian embassy in Kyrgyzstan had put a stamp in her Soviet passport confirming that she had obtained Russian citizenship. In 2001 a Russian internal passport was issued to her, however, in 2006, when she applied for an international passport, it was seized on the grounds that she had never properly acquired Russian citizenship.
In 1998, the second applicant, who had been living in Russia since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, received an insert in his Soviet passport, confirming his Russian citizenship. He was issued a Russian passport in 2002. However, in 2010, when he turned 45 and, as required by domestic law, applied to exchange his passport, he was refused on the grounds that the authorities could not find any registration proving that he had ever been granted Russian citizenship.
Both applicants unsuccessfully challenged these decisions before the domestic courts. They were subsequently granted Russian citizenship, the first applicant in 2010 and the second in 2013.
Law – Article 8: While the instant case concerned the domestic authorities’ findings that the applicants had never properly acquired Russian citizenship, the Court applied the principles concerning arbitrary denial or revocation of citizenship (see Karassev v. Finland (dec.), 31414/96, 12 January 1999, Information Note 2; Genovese v. Malta, 53124/09, 11 October 2011, Information Note 145; Ramadan v. Malta, 76136/12, 21 June 2016, Information Note 197; and K2 v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 42387/13, 7 February 2017, Information Note 205)
The impugned decisions had deprived the applicants of their legal status in Russia and effectively rendered them stateless persons. They had been left without any valid identity document, which entailed considerable consequences for their everyday life, as Russian citizens had to prove their identity unusually often, even when performing such mundane tasks as exchanging currency or buying train tickets. Moreover, an internal passport was required for more crucial needs, such as finding employment or receiving medical care (as established in Smirnova v. Russia, 46133/99 and 48183/99, 24 July 2003, Information Note 55). For the second applicant, his failure to complete the mandatory exchange of his passport was also considered an administrative offence. Hence, the impugned decisions amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life.
The decisions had however been in accordance with the law and the applicants had availed themselves of the possibility to contest them before the domestic courts, which had examined their claims at two levels of jurisdiction. The applicants, who had not alleged any procedural shortcomings, had thus been afforded the necessary procedural safeguards.
Having regard to the Ombudsman’s reports on the practice of seizing passports from former citizens of the USSR who had moved to Russia from CIS countries, the documents confirming the applicants’ citizenship could very well have been irregularly issued. However that was not through any fault of their own but due to the lack of streamlined procedures, and a unified database, and also because of errors committed by the State officials.
Due to the authorities’ mishandling of procedures related to the granting of citizenship, the applicants had found themselves not only in a situation comparable to that in the Smirnova case, but also faced consequences affecting their social identity far more fundamentally as they had been deprived of any legal status in Russia. They had become stateless persons and remained so until 2010 and 2013 respectively. It had taken the authorities from 2007, when the Ombudsman had drawn attention to the issue, until 2013 for the general problem to be solved. Since the authorities’ oversight had resulted in consequences for the applicants so severely affecting their private life, it amounted to an arbitrary interference. The authorities had thus failed to act diligently.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 5,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Leave a Reply